Do you agree with this rather modest proposal?
I do whole heartly agree
34.6% (9)
34.6% (9)
Nay, I disagree with the ideology
61.5% (16)
61.5% (16)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: A Modest Proposal For The UK Criminal Justice System

I've recently put together a small article/essay that I believe would be inappropriate for the politics forum since I'm looking for the common individual's view on the subject.

A Modest Proposal For The UK Criminal Justice System

There has been a long running controversy that has ravaged the criminal justice system and created a divide between what the public wants and what the public gets. This controversy appeared again recently as concerns that the Lulzsec hackers, one of which was a much dreaded paedophile due to being suspected as one (it is considered a social fact and a common consensus that once suspected of paedophilia you simply are one and non-guilty verdicts are a corruption of justice rather than a false accusation), are going to be spending their time in a prison that more resembles a hotel than a prison from Porridge. It is at this point that I suggest a modest proposal that would better suit the British public, especially those who's reading habits consists of The Sun, The Daily Mail and celebrity autobiographies.

I propose that first we sell off the criminal justice system. That the government does not fund anything except it's own defence and prosecution in court. This, in a financial crisis, will surely reap some money back and crawl our way out of the economic depression we are facing. As displayed by Margaret Thatcher, the selling off of particular government-owned properties (in the 80s case, counsel houses) can really save a country from a financial disaster and also discourage scroungers from exploiting the government to it's own end. In it's place will be businesses, which will employ it's services for a price. However, this price will be worth it as competition creates efficiency and we wouldn't have to spend money on areas that keep making mistakes time and time again which ruins people's lives in the process. I also trust that with the selling off of the prisons too, it will not descend into imprisoning people for money. It worked in America, and it'll work here.

The second part of this proposal is we alter the way prisons work to minimalise costs and maximise efficiency. Too long now we have been pandering to the EU in their counter-productive ideologies such as "human rights" and "ethics". No, we will need to remove them from the prison system to create a system that functions to meet it's objectives: To punish criminals severely so they don't do it again. Too long we've set up a system that attempts to rehabilitate prisoners, but due to a less than 100% success rate it is obviously more unethical to release a man that may commit further crime (we will never know for certain, but the possibility exists and that in it's self is incriminating) than to punish a criminal severely enough that he will not commit a crime again.

The first alteration that would need to be done is "life means life". Obviously, it has been the case that life has not meant life since those with the "life" conviction has been freed while they've had a pulse. Since these prisoners committed a crime, any crime, they don't deserve rights. Rights are for those who follow what the government says and they are faultless. The second alteration is we need to maximise security and minimalise comfort. Too long we've allowed prisoners luxeries such as TVs, computer game consoles and beds. No, we need to remove such non-essential products from these men's lives.

The third alteration is we'll need to look through historical documentation for the best way to handle prisoners in an effective manner. Despite claims of sociologists, psychologists and criminologists of knowing better, they are the ones who put us into the situation of high-costs low-reward scenario. Plus, they are pesky scholars who consider themselves scientists despite not being one. However, historical evidence gives us many examples of prison techniques that worked to handle prisoners a way that gives maximum efficiency according to the same historical documentation. Namely, we'll need to look to see how they dealt with punishment. Most methods was torture, which as we know leads to a low re-offending rate. Some were forms of execution which has led to a 100% non-reoffending rate. However, we'll need to torture these men through-out the process of execution since slowly crushing a man to death with rocks is comparable to rape and they should suffer for their crime for the satisfaction of the public.

However, the most pesky part of all of this is cost. It's rather costly to change the left-wing mentality that went into the criminal justice system in favour for a solid right-wing method that makes sure those convicted regret their crimes and never reoffend. However, it is with some personal research of conversing with colleagues of mine that I have drawn a conclusion. Since the public wishes to not only spectate but also many times have shown wishes to take part in the activity. Due to this, I wish to propose that we sell seats where people may watch others torture particular heinous criminals such as paedophiles and drug addicts, and for a good high cost we sell the option for the general public to torture the criminals themselves. I have personally conducted research in the area and I have good reason to believe that selling seats for 5 for low-key moments and up to 100 for high-publicity events complete with entertainment would be ideal. I have also conversed with individuals who share my view and some would pay up to 200 for the ability to torture and 1000 for the ability to execute someone. Is is this that I see we'll make back all the money we'll have to spend setting it up and keeping it running. I even think we'll be able to make enough money to put into place other schemes that seem to suit the general public such as highly effective anti-immigration police and public stocks where those who are highly suspected of a crime but can't be prosecuted may have rotten vegetables and stones thrown at him/her. I believe this is what the general public wants, and this is what the general public deserves.

You gotta get this printed in my favrit paper, the sun. I fink the onest ard workin man wil love this, an it will show all those immigunts how to behave, coz only immigunts do crimes, but it needs more tits.

First off, locking people up for life sentences in prisons is almost certainly going to increase your costs. Secondly, a lot of crime can be attributed to poverty & a small minority of problem families - if you cut certain social programs, you're just making it so that you have to pay a lot more down the line. A load of offenders will also have behavioural/mental health problems that have never really been addressed - not everyone going through the justice system had an option in committing a crime.

A few more problems:

- You just precipitated a class war by cutting legal aid for everyone apart from the rich
- The UK would lose a lot of trade & diplomatic power if we started behaving like tyrannical dicks (again)
- Torture doesn't work & is against human rights, but I guess you're not particularly in favour of those...

Anyway, 6/10...if you actually mean any of this then excuse me while I get on my spaceship to Mars.

Yep.

Hold cage matches as well. If we match the pedophiles with illegal immigrants, it could be called Alien vs. Predator! Winner gets as painless a death as can still sell tickets.

Imperator_DK:
Yep.

Hold cage matches as well. If we match the pedophiles with illegal immigrants, it could be called Alien vs. Predator! Winner gets as painless a death as can still sell tickets.

Oh lawd, that's one of the best puns I've seen in ages. Almost makes up for the rest of the people in this thread not getting the joke.

I think this would definitely improve the UK's economy. Implementing all this will also be an effective way of getting kicked out of the EU, so it's sorta like a two birds with one stone kinda deal.

And if we're lucky, a couple decades from now we might see famous video game about the results of the countries sure-to-be successful economical reforms proposed here.

Imperator_DK:
Yep.

Hold cage matches as well. If we match the pedophiles with illegal immigrants, it could be called Alien vs. Predator! Winner gets as painless a death as can still sell tickets.

Could spice it up by making it young immigrants, for one, the predator is not trained to fight adults, and second. Its usually the kids committing all the crimes anyway, so we'd have them in plenty supply. Fair 'and' just. More than they deserve.

Riobux:
snip

Ah, the sweet smell of satire.

Mind you, I think potentially you may as well do this sort of thing, if for no other reason than to remind people why it really shouldn't be done, seeing as how much better the world has been made is so easily taken for granted by those who've never had to put up with the bad times.

Nikolaz72:
...
Could spice it up by making it young immigrants, for one, the predator is not trained to fight adults, and second. Its usually the kids committing all the crimes anyway, so we'd have them in plenty supply. Fair 'and' just. More than they deserve.

Easy now. While I'm sure the AvP people will sell their copyright, I'm not really sure about the Pro Lesring ones. Remember, unlike the kids, copyright can't be fucked over.

He's calling the thing 'a modest proposal'. Is Agema the only one that gets this is satire?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal

Jux:
He's calling the thing 'a modest proposal'. Is Agema the only one that gets this is satire?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal

Not really.

Though at times it's more amusing to run with it. And it would hardly be unnatural if people on a chiefly American gaming forum weren't aware of a British text from 1729. It's like an American gaming forum isn't the best place for a discussion about the UK prison system or something. Though Brits always did assume the eyes of the world were ever upon them.

Imperator_DK:
Yep.

Hold cage matches as well. If we match the pedophiles with illegal immigrants, it could be called Alien vs. Predator! Winner gets as painless a death as can still sell tickets.

I heard they have an American army counterpart called Aliens Vs Predator: Colonial Marines.

Have you read a modest proposal by Jonathan Swift?

Agema:

Riobux:
snip

Ah, the sweet smell of satire.

Mind you, I think potentially you may as well do this sort of thing, if for no other reason than to remind people why it really shouldn't be done, seeing as how much better the world has been made is so easily taken for granted by those who've never had to put up with the bad times.

Damn it, you said it first.

Esotera:
First off, locking people up for life sentences in prisons is almost certainly going to increase your costs. Secondly, a lot of crime can be attributed to poverty & a small minority of problem families - if you cut certain social programs, you're just making it so that you have to pay a lot more down the line. A load of offenders will also have behavioural/mental health problems that have never really been addressed - not everyone going through the justice system had an option in committing a crime.

A few more problems:

- You just precipitated a class war by cutting legal aid for everyone apart from the rich
- The UK would lose a lot of trade & diplomatic power if we started behaving like tyrannical dicks (again)
- Torture doesn't work & is against human rights, but I guess you're not particularly in favour of those...

Anyway, 6/10...if you actually mean any of this then excuse me while I get on my spaceship to Mars.

The reasoning you cite here was actually caused by problems that arose no earlier than the 1950s. Life in prison is cheaper than the death penalty in America because of the near endless appeals process for the death penalty. I don't know how that compares to the UK, but I just thought I'd mention it.

Blaming someone's lack of legal morality (following the laws because they're the laws) but for just what is convenient for them is, well, convenient for your argument. Poverty is a symptom of a larger problem, not the reason people become criminals. People don't just become impoverished by no fault of their own (yes, children in poverty is bad, but their parents made the choice to have children even though they are impoverished.) Yes, people had a choice whether or not to commit a crime or not because every choice up to the one of whether or not to commit a crime led them to a choice you say they had little choice but to make towards illegality. The person who decides to commit a crime that is clearly against what most people see as moral (say, theft or murder) is probably not the best decision maker in the world. Their entire life up to that point would probably confirm that.

"Social programs," such an innocuous phrase but also one that is only about 100 years old. In fact, using social as an adjective as a common practice dates back about that far as well.

Class war threat, nice. Something Marxists and others have been claiming is on the precipice of happening for the last 100 to 150 years or so. Never really happened ever.

"Against human rights." What are human rights? And who really has the authority to enforce them? Sort of an important question, I take it. People seem to want some things to be "rights" so they throw "human" in front of "rights" to make what they want seem like natural rights. "Human rights" are things people want to be natural rights but clearly are not in any way, shape, or form.

Also, my entire counterargument can be summed up thusly: The UK under Thatcher. She changed the country for the better, even though the UK ended up settling back into many ways she warned against.

Nobody gets eaten? I'm a bit disappointed there.

Cap: trickle down

...

Weird.

The lack of mention for Irish prisoners also disappoint me. Why just execute them when we can eat them?

5/5 would wipe my arse with if it were printed in the Daily Mail.

Big_Willie_Styles:

Class war threat, nice. Something Marxists and others have been claiming is on the precipice of happening for the last 100 to 150 years or so. Never really happened ever.

Except for, y'know, all the times it has.

The Plunk:
5/5 would wipe my arse with if it were printed in the Daily Mail.

Big_Willie_Styles:

Class war threat, nice. Something Marxists and others have been claiming is on the precipice of happening for the last 100 to 150 years or so. Never really happened ever.

Except for, y'know, all the times it has.

There are some people who would remove speed limits because everyone drives under 30.

Because it's half ten here and I have work in the morning, I don't have the time to pin-point out the problem with every phrase there.

So for now.

Your last paragraph is like the second episode of series 2 of Black Mirror.

The Plunk:
5/5 would wipe my arse with if it were printed in the Daily Mail.

Big_Willie_Styles:

Class war threat, nice. Something Marxists and others have been claiming is on the precipice of happening for the last 100 to 150 years or so. Never really happened ever.

Except for, y'know, all the times it has.

Except a real class war has not happened in the last 150 years. The stuff with Lenin didn't lead to the revolution said class war is supposed to give. It lead to the starvation and/or slaughter of 30 million people in Russia under Stalin.

Why must today's satire always lean on Master Swift's? Calling it 'A modest x' sort of gives away the fun of trying to determine if it is a decent satire or not.
I think it was a tad over the top. Then again, so was A Modest Proposal back in the days.

Big_Willie_Styles:

The Plunk:
5/5 would wipe my arse with if it were printed in the Daily Mail.

Big_Willie_Styles:

Class war threat, nice. Something Marxists and others have been claiming is on the precipice of happening for the last 100 to 150 years or so. Never really happened ever.

Except for, y'know, all the times it has.

Except a real class war has not happened in the last 150 years. The stuff with Lenin didn't lead to the revolution said class war is supposed to give. It lead to the starvation and/or slaughter of 30 million people in Russia under Stalin.

I didn't say that class war always works, in fact it hardly ever does. But saying that it "Never really happened ever" is straight-up false.

The Plunk:

I didn't say that class war always works, in fact it hardly ever does. But saying that it "Never really happened ever" is straight-up false.

Of course class war works.

Although we might query precisely what is meant by it. To use a very narrow Marxist-style approach of mass class violence or revolution, it's rare in modern times. In terms of a more generalised sense of "class conflict", where groups of different socioeconomic status vie against each other to improve their lot through law, politics, strikes and so on (occasionally including low-level violence), I would suggest it has been a virtually permanent condition.

The Plunk:
I didn't say that class war always works, in fact it hardly ever does. But saying that it "Never really happened ever" is straight-up false.

I'm talking class war on a revolutionary level. Class war is a basic human emotion-pandering form of politics, stoking envy of people who realize rich people have more than them and lying to them about the "why." It happens every election cycle in the United states.

Class war revolutions never sustain themselves because it ends up proving exactly why the "poor" who started the revolution weren't in charge to begin with: They start killing innocent people arbitrarily or millions starve or get tortured & raped, or just mass natural right violations.

Big_Willie_Styles:

Class war revolutions never sustain themselves because it ends up proving exactly why the "poor" who started the revolution weren't in charge to begin with: They start killing innocent people arbitrarily or millions starve or get tortured & raped, or just mass natural right violations.

Ah, that good ol' classicm! It's been too long!

Seriously, though, you have no idea how lucky you are that you weren't born into genuine poverty. Must be nice being able to look down on all those unwashed masses from your pristine middle-class ivory tower.

Big_Willie_Styles:

The Plunk:
I didn't say that class war always works, in fact it hardly ever does. But saying that it "Never really happened ever" is straight-up false.

I'm talking class war on a revolutionary level. Class war is a basic human emotion-pandering form of politics, stoking envy of people who realize rich people have more than them and lying to them about the "why." It happens every election cycle in the United states.

Class war revolutions never sustain themselves because it ends up proving exactly why the "poor" who started the revolution weren't in charge to begin with: They start killing innocent people arbitrarily or millions starve or get tortured & raped, or just mass natural right violations.

Yes, can't trust those poor with anything, can we?
By the way, can I borrow a tenner? Groceries have been getting more expensive recently and it's getting harder to make ends meets.

For profit prisons did not work in America. They lead to corruption, bribery, false convictions, and high recidivism rates.

2012 Wont Happen:
For profit prisons did not work in America. They lead to corruption, bribery, false convictions, and high recidivism rates.

That's assuming you consider those things to be failures. For profit prisons are for profit, not to prevent that sort of thing, aren't they?

thaluikhain:

2012 Wont Happen:
For profit prisons did not work in America. They lead to corruption, bribery, false convictions, and high recidivism rates.

That's assuming you consider those things to be failures. For profit prisons are for profit, not to prevent that sort of thing, aren't they?

I consider corporate profit being valued over societal good a systematic failure.

 

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked